— What
exactly is an anti-communist? This is a question which appears to be so
simple of resolution as to border on being foolish. However, there are
different ways in which it may be answered. If we consider only the two
most common responses to it being given nowadays, we should see that they
both contain a world of nuances of the greatest importance. If we fail to
grasp these shades of meaning, we will understand nothing about
international politics as it is presently developing. Worse yet, we will
allow ourselves to be deceived by Communism. And this is exactly what is
happening to a vast number of our contemporaries.

It is,
then, indispensable for us to know how to answer this question.

*
* *

The
Yalta Treaty which was signed immediately after World War II was quite
rightly considered by all anti-communists to be an aberration. It
consecrated the imperialist expansion of Russia de facto — the expansion
which later the unhappy Helsinki Agree­ment would consecrate de jure.

Until
Yalta, it was customary for an anti-commu­nist to define himself as an
opponent of Marxist philosophy, as well as of the politico-social and
economic program which flowed from it. Since Moscow was the Red Mecca from
which the tentacles of Communist propaganda extended all over the world,
the opponents of Communism were understandably also adversaries of Moscow.

And
Yalta, which had consecrated de facto Moscow's expansion in Eastern
Europe, provided an additional basis for this opposition. In other words,
it gave anti-communists a few more reasons for being "anti."

Russian
dominion over Eastern Europe brought in its wake the imposition of the
Communist regime in the satellite nations. Obviously, this extension of
Communism could only be considered with execra­tion by anti-communists.
But the crime had other aspects as well, for sovereign nations had been
enslaved by Russian imperialism. Accordingly, anti-communists in the
post-Yalta period began to decry the Russian conquest of Eastern Europe,
for precisely the same reason that Europeans of the eighteenth and
nine­teenth centuries had become indignant over the partition of Poland
between Russian, Austrian, and Prus­sian crowns. In short, there was an
outcry against Russia which had nothing to do with Communism as such but
which was inspired by the law of nations, as in the case of the analogous
attitude against Czarist Russia just mentioned.

If only
the subjugated peoples had been consulted in all honesty and freedom,
according to the generally accepted forms of plebiscite, as to whether or
not they accepted Russian domination... and if they had answered
favorably! But they had been subjugated by, and continue to be subjugated
by force.

Thus,
anti-communists concluded with more fire than ever that, without doubt,
there is no possible way of getting along with Communism. Towards it, only
two attitudes are possible: fight or surrender. And the fight was taken up
more tenaciously than ever.

*
* *

At that
stage, the concept of anti-communism was still clear. Who would have then
predicted that Com­munist propaganda would have the diabolical cleverness
to draw from that situation an opportunity to "shuffle" the minds of
innumerable anti-communists, thus taking the first step on a long road of
ambiguities which would lead us to the present miserable situation?

But
that is what happened.

Until
that moment, if one were to have asked an anti-communist if he was
anti-czarist, he might very possibly have answered: no. In the case of a
yes an­swer, he would have emphasized that he was not op­posed to Czarism
as an anti-communist but as a Democrat. There were democratic and
non-democratic anti-communists. That profound difference between them did
not prevent either the former or the latter from being anti-communist.

Obviously, for democratic anti-communists, the despotic character of the
Soviet regime provided a preferred argument in their anti-red polemics. It
is perfectly understandable that such an argument should have achieved
great tactical success in the na­tions of the West, profoundly imbued as
they are with the democratic spirit.

The
success obtained through this approach led many personalities in the West
to repeat with increas­ing frequency the democratic accusations against
Communism in interviews and in declarations to the press, radio, and
television. And this same procedure was employed by important
anti-communist organizations. Thus, little by little the immense
anti-com­munist murmur that had spread all over the world changed its
"leitmotif." The defense of tradition, family, and property (three values
which Communism crushes) was relegated more and more to a secondary level.
And the main reason for opposing Communism — which gradually became the
only argument of the great anti-communist offensive — consisted in the
fact that the Communist regime is anti-democratic.

This
division between the two lines of anti-communist argumentation, that is,
the older one based on tradition, family, and property and the new one
which rests merely on democratic principles, was contradictory and
perfectly artificial.

This is
so because any democratic minded person, to the extent that he opposes
tradition and favors abolishing the family and private property, sinks
into the most complete totalitarianism — that is to say into the exact
opposite of what he understands by democracy.

This
new conception of anti-communism had a kind of world-wide glorification
when the late President Kennedy, speaking in Berlin, proclaimed that his
only reason for opposing Communism was the regime behind the Iron Curtain
was not based on free elections. Presumably an identical regime arrived at
by democratic procedures would not have been objectionable to him. Thus it
was that the head of the greatest temporal power in the west enshrined a
new meaning, an empty meaning, of anti­communism. Faithful to Rousseau's
pagan doctrine of the absolute sovereignty of the people, Kennedy affirmed
by this declaration that the majority could practice every abuse against
the minority and could deny them all of their natural rights even by
imposing on them the most despotic and unjust of regimes.

In
addition, Kennedy's statement is an indication that the political
mentalities of many anti-communists had already undergone a gradual
modification, a change which subsequently has been broadened and deepened.
Although I do not have in my hands absolutely irrefutable documentary
proofs that this somehow occurred as a result of Communist policy, as far
as I am concerned I have no doubt that Communism is at the root of this
transformation, since it has made such prodigious gains through it. For in
this matter the principle holds that everything giving an advantage to
Communism has presumably or certain­ly been brought about by the
Communists.

*
* *

Through
the passing of decades we have arrived at the final outcome of the drama.
After having profoundly intoxi­cated anti-communist circles with the
principle that they are nothing more than democrats a la Rousseau, the
Communists are making their great decisive play for the conquest of
Western Europe.

The two
main Communist Parties on this side of the Iron Curtain are those of
France and Italy.

Both of
these Communist Parties are carrying out a policy aimed at persuading
non-communist opinion that they are really democratic. In this way, they
hope to win the approval of the democratic parties of the center so as to
be able to form coalition governments that will include Communists at the
cabinet level.

As we
know very well, from the moment that some cabinet level posts are granted
to the Communists, they come to be the strong men of the government, and
the total conquest of power by the Communists is irreversible.

Read
the newspapers of our days. Right now in France a movie is being shown
which describes Soviet concentration camps. The Communist Parties of both
France and Italy are protesting, alleging that they are against this
method of dictatorial repression. Both of them are ostentatiously
repudiating the conquest of power by force, and are affirm­ing quite
clearly that they hope to achieve their coveted triumph only by means of
free elections. Both parties decry Russian hegemony over the satel­lite
countries, and proclaim their resolution to preserve national sovereignty
if they should rise to power.

This
being the case, what reason does a Rousseauean anti-communist have to
oppose the rise to power of such Rousseauean anti-communist? None.

Thus,
the gradual evolution of the adjective "anti-communist" from its pristine,
substantial, and definite mean­ing to the sense in which it is so often
understood now, is on the verge of furnishing tactical advantages to the
Communists which may be decisive for the conquest of Western Europe.

*
* *

Today,
innumerable authentic European anti-communists are allowing themselves to
be hoodwinked by a clever propagandistic maneuver that has transformed
them from militant anti-communists into foolish and innocuous
non-communists. It is on their backs that the Communist Parties of France
and Italy hope to ride into power.

"A fool
is the devil's steed," says an old proverb. How right it is!

Note:The preceding article has been translated and adapted
without the author’s revision.